Judgment 1. Heard Sri Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the informant and Sri Panchanand Pandit. learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The contention of Sri Mahto is that the deceased and the informant are active members of Bhartiya Janta Party and a Band call was given by the Rashtriya Janta Dal of which the petitioner is an active leader and this fact has been suppressed in the First Information Report lodged by the informant and the manner of occurrence as alleged in the First Information Report is concocted. 3. A Xerox copy of the certified copy of the Ballistics Experts Report has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the Bail Application. The Ballistics Experts have concluded that the fatal shot was not fired from the petitioners revolver No. 1318764 but, the shell which was recovered and could be said to be of the fatal bullet fired from sten gun and therefore, the allegation in the FIR that the petitioner fired from his licensed revolver is false. 4. Sri Sinha, learned counsel for the informant contended that, it is settled law that the FIR may not contain all the details and it was not necessary for the informant to have stated in the FIR that a Band call was given for that day by the Rashtriya Janta Dal. 5. Sri Sinha submitted that, it is not the case of the informant that he or his brother are members muchless active members of the Bhartiya Janta Party but, the dispute arose on account of the facts stated in the FIR which led to the murder of the deceased by the petitioner and his bodyguard. Learned counsel contended that the bullet was recovered from a nearby shop which had pierced the iron shutter of the shop in question. 6. He further submitted that the date of occurrence was 23.9.1998 and it is not amenable to reason as to why the petitioners licensed revolver was not recovered from him earlier but, only on 10.11.1998 and curiously after a lapse of almost 2 months from the date of occurrence. Petitioners licensed revolver, the recovered shell and the sten gun belonging to the bodyguard of the petitioner were sent for ballistics examination only on 6.2.1999. Petitioners licensed revolver, the recovered shell and the sten gun belonging to the bodyguard of the petitioner were sent for ballistics examination only on 6.2.1999. His contention therefore, is that between the period from 23.9.1998 to 10.11.1998 all signs in the revolver having been used could have been destroyed and therefore, the conclusion in the Ballistics Experts Report that the revolver was not used is not of much significance as all these facts have to be established and proved at the trial of the accused-persons. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record I am of the opinion that at this stage the petitioner, Chunchun Prasad Yadav @ Chunchun Prasad has not made out any prima facie cast to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the application for the bail is rejected.